Re: Phil Skell replies to David Campbell

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 13:32:00 EDT

Ted Davis wrote:

>Phil has asked me to post this. (He prefers not to join the list himself at
>the moment, but he is interested in what we think of his op-ed piece.)
>
>****
> David Campbell's very learned exegesis of Mayr's description misses
>the point that paleontology and modern experimental biology provide
>enormously disparate data.
>
>
>
What Skell does not seem to realize is that when data points are
limited, hypotheses become contentious and often hard to resolve.
However many of the issues which were _quoted_ by Mayr as issues brought
up by proponents of a particular hypothesis, have been resolved by
recent science. 4 years can be a lot of time in fast moving areas of
research.

>His digression into chemistry is almost totally non-relevant, since biology
>
>is concerned with unique individual organisms, no two of which are
>identical in the sense that two samples of the same chemical are identical.
>
>Further, Darwin's theory was based on evidence most of which is lost and
>forever inaccessible to experimental tests, while chemistry and its
>theories are grossly different in this respect.
>
>
That's silly. Darwin's theory was based on the available data of his
time, and more data has become available often in indirect ways.

>Nobels for Physiology/Medicine deal almost entirely with Biology. Darwin's
>
>"theory" is mainly metaphysically-based speculation about matters lost in
>deep-time, and makes only meddlesome contributions to experimental
>biology. Phil
>
>
>

I find Skell's comments to be mostly lacking much foundation in logic or
reality. Sigh
Received on Wed Sep 21 13:32:23 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 13:32:24 EDT